"On the Interpretation of Genesis"
Leo Strauss
Select Commentary
March 9, 2016
G.D.O'Bradovich III
We were initially reluctant to analyze Dr. Strauss' comments on the first creation account found in Genesis, as it seems that a commentary on a commentary on a translation would be so far removed from the original text as to be of questionable worth. We were pleasantly surprised by the results of our efforts and anticipate that the curious reader will peruse the full text.
If, at times, our commentary seems excessive, we suggest the reasons are partly due to Strauss' dense writing style, being a non native English speaker, and are partly due to our desire to provide a thorough explanation, where possible.
The Blue Letter Bible has been consulted for clarification of certain Hebrew words.
If, at times, our commentary seems excessive, we suggest the reasons are partly due to Strauss' dense writing style, being a non native English speaker, and are partly due to our desire to provide a thorough explanation, where possible.
The Blue Letter Bible has been consulted for clarification of certain Hebrew words.
part the first
The frequency of a statement does not indicate that degree of truth of that statement. “Truthiness” is a concept best left to the domain of political commentators such as Stephen Colbert, not political theorists.
Political theory is frequently said to be concerned with the values of the Western world. These values... are partly of biblical and partly of Greek origin.”
The political theorist must ... have an inkling of the agreement as well as the disagreement between the biblical and the Greek heritage.
[Most people rely] on what biblical scholars or classical scholars tell him about the Bible on the one hand and Greek thought on the other.
Still I thought it would be defensible if I were to try to see whether I could not understand something of the Bible without relying entirely on what the authorities both contemporary and traditional tell me.
Strauss proposes that the Bible could be understood with only a limited influence from authorities, that is, he believes that he can understand Genesis without any specialized knowledge. The use of the word “something” indicates that Strauss has placed limitations on his attempt; he will not try to understand all of the Bible.
If the Bible is a work of the human mind, it has to be read like any other book...with respect but also with willingness to argue with the author, to disagree with him, to criticize him.
We note that while the reader can argue, disagree or criticize an author, the author cannot be reasoned with or be convinced that he is mistaken.
If the Bible is the work of God, it has... to be read in a spirit of pious submission, of reverent hearing. According to this view only a believing and pious man can understand ...the substance of the Bible.
The definition of “submission” (“inclined or ready to yield to the authority of another”) implies dependency.
According to the view which prevails today, the unbeliever, provided he is a man of the necessary experience or sensitivity, can understand the Bible as well as the believer.
In the past the Bible was universally read as the document of revelation. Today it is frequently read as one great document of the human mind among many such documents. Revelation is a miracle. This means... that before we even open the Bible we must have made up our minds as to whether we believe in the possibility of miracles.
Either we regard miracles as impossible or we regard them as possible or else we do not know whether miracles are possible or not. The last view at first glance recommends itself as the one most agreeable to our ignorance or, which is the same thing, as most open-minded.
The reader must determine if miracles, and by extension divine revelations, are possible, impossible. If unconvinced, the reader may uncertain about the reality of miracles. Strauss equates ignorance with being open-minded.
The question as to whether miracles are possible or not depends on the previous question as to whether God as an omnipotent being exists.
If an all-powerful God does not exist, then miracles cannot happen.
Many of our contemporaries assume tacitly or even explicitly that we know that God as an omnipotent being does not exist.
I believe that they [our contemporaries] are wrong; for how could we know that God as an omnipotent being does not exist?”
Strauss questions how people know that God can not exist. [Vide- “Exegesis on Psalm 14” for our understanding of atheism as an intellectual position.]
Experience cannot show more than that the conclusion from the world, from its manifest order and from its manifest rhythm, to an omnipotent creator is not valid. Experience can show at most that the contention of biblical faith is improbable...
Strauss writes that our experience as human beings can not conclude the existence of an all powerful creator from the natural world. The universe's “manifest” order and rhythm suggest a creator, however, we cannot conclude the existence of an all-powerful God, a really powerful God or a somewhat powerful God. It can also be stated that the the moral character of the creator can not be known from the physical world, that is, we can not know if the universe was created by a good God or a demonic Devil.
Biblical faith “could not be meritorious if it were not faith against heavy odds.
We confess that we do not understand the correlation between a “claim to respect and praise; excellence; worth” or “something that deserves or justifies a reward or commendation” and improbability.
The next step of a criticism of the biblical faith would be guided by the principle of contradiction alone. For example, people would say that divine omniscience...is incompatible with human freedom... But all criticism of this kind presupposes that it is ... possible to speak about God without making contradictory statements.
We suggest that “all criticism of this kind” originates from those individuals who have opinions on the nature of God as presented in the Bible.
If God is incomprehensible and yet not unknown, and this is implied in the idea of God's omnipotence, it is impossible to speak about God without making contradictory statements about him.
The premise that God is all powerful suggests that we can know him. The acceptance of the additional premise that God is all knowing results in contradictory statements regarding the nature of God. We propose that the idea of an all powerful and all knowing God was suggested by certain well meaning individuals lacking in sophistication and who could not fully understand the inherent contradictions that result from such a God. Strauss omits the third quality usually assigned to God -omnibenevolence- being all good.
The God about whom we can speak without making contradictions... is the God of Aristotle and not the God of Abraham...
Strauss clearly states that the God of the Bible is, by his behavior attributed to him, contradictory. The behavior of Aristotle's God, on the other hand, is not contradictory. While we are unfamiliar with Aristotle's God, we are familiar with Plato's God, who has no knowledge of man's activites. [Vide for select quotes from Parmenides. ]
There is then only one way in which the belief in an omnipotent God can be refuted, by showing ... [1] that we have clear and distinct knowledge, or scientific knowledge, in principle of everything, [2] that we can give an adequate and clear account of everything, [3] that all fundamental questions have been answered in a perfectly satisfactory way, in other words that there exists what we may call the absolute and final philosophic system.
Strauss states that only a “final philosophic system” can refute belief in an omnipotent God.
According to that system ... the previously hidden God, the previously incomprehensible God, has now become perfectly revealed, perfectly comprehensible.
I regard the existence of such a system as at least as improbable as the truth of the Bible.
Strauss states that the “truth of the Bible” is improbable.
But, obviously, the improbability of the truth of the Bible is a contention of the Bible whereas the improbability of the truth of the perfect philosophic system creates a serious difficulty for that system.
The improbability of the truth of the Bible is one characteristic of the Bible. Strauss and Fred question the probability of Hegel's philosophic system.
If it is true then that human reason cannot prove the non-existence of God as an omnipotent being, it is... equally true that human reason cannot establish the existence of God as an omnipotent being.
We find it interesting that human reason, without revelation, can not prove either the non-existence or existence of an all powerful God. Once again, Strauss brings omnipotence to the readers attention. We remind the reader that nothing is impossible for an omnipotent being-the creation from nothing and divine revelation being the most notable acts.
In our capacity ...we are reduced to a state of doubt in regard to the most important question. We have no choice but to approach the Bible in this state of doubt as long as we claim to be scholars or men of science. Yet that is possible only against a background of knowledge.
Scholars who possess some knowledge can only read the Bible in a state of doubt. The conclusion is that others who have opinions, whether valid or otherwise, can read the Bible without doubt. Of course, these readers do not and cannot claim to be men of science or men of knowledge.
I disregard the innumerable facts which we know, for knowledge of mere facts is not knowledge, not true knowledge.
Strauss distinguishes between the “knowledge of mere facts” and “true knowledge”. Facts can change whereas true knowledge is unchangeable.
I also disregard our knowledge of scientific laws for these laws are admittedly open to future revision.
Strauss' final philosophical system cannot include scientific laws, since there exists the possibility that they can be revised. Therefore, we suggest that his proposed system must be simple and easily understood, takes into account possibilities and is all encompassing.
We might say, what we truly know are not any answers to comprehensive questions but only these questions, questions imposed upon us as human beings by our situation as human beings.
As human beings, we are confronted with questions, but not answers.
“This presupposes that there is a fundamental situation of man as man which is not affected by ... any so-called historical change in particular. It is man's fundamental situation ...within a whole that is so little subject to historical change that it is a condition of every possible historical change.
Through history, man's condition remains unchanged, that is, the externals may change,but man remains man. This condition of man will remain into the future.
These considerations show... how unreasonable it is to speak of the mythical... character of biblical thought as such.
If we know this [whole], we can know it only by starting from what we may call the phenomenal world, the given whole, the whole which is permanently given, as permanently as are human beings, the whole which is held together and constituted by the vault of heaven and comprising heaven and earth and everything that is within heaven and on earth and between heaven and earth.
The vault of heaven comprises “heaven and earth”, everything within “heaven and earth” and between “heaven and earth”. Either heaven is an ambiguous term or the sentence is ambiguously written.
All human thought... which is meant to be understood by human beings ... with this whole, the permanently given whole which we all know and which men always know.
Strauss suggests that the “true knowledge” of the world and of humanity is available to anyone who reasons and thinks.
The Bible begins with an articulation of the permanently given whole; this is one articulation of the permanently given whole among many such articulations.
Strauss states that the “given whole” is permanent. There are many attempts to explain our existence as human beings and the Bible offers one of these possible explanations.
Who says that in the beginning God created heaven and earth? Who says it we are not told; hence we do not know. Is this silence about the speaker at the beginning of the Bible due to the fact that it does not make a difference who says it? ... We are not told; hence we do not know.
Since the text does not reveal the author, Strauss repeats that the reader can not know the author.
The traditional view is that God said it. Yet the Bible introduces God's speeches by "'and God said" and this is not said at the beginning. We may, therefore, believe the first chapter of Genesis is said by a nameless man. Yet he cannot have been an eye-witness of what he tells. No man can have been an eye-witness of the creation...
Strauss concludes that the first chapter is related by a nameless individual who could not be a witness to the act of the creation that he describes.
Must not, therefore, the account [of creation] be ascribed to God as was traditionally done? But we have no right to assert this as definite.
Unlike the unscientific reader with an opinion, the doubting reader who is ignorant cannot assert the account of creation to God.
The beginning of the Bible is not readily intelligible. It is strange.
Genesis is not “readily intelligible” and the implication is that it can become, with study, intelligible.
If we take this literally, that the earth in its primeval form, without form and void, was not created, the creation was formation rather than creation out of nothing.
The implication is that the matter is eternal and this chaotic primeval matter was rearranged to form the earth. Matter was not created from nothing.
If in the beginning God created heaven and earth and all the other things in six days, the days cannot be days in the ordinary sense, for days in the ordinary sense are determined by the movements of the sun. Yet the sun was created only on the fourth creation day.
In brief all these difficulties... create the impression, which is shared by many people today, that this is a so-called mythical account. This means in fact, as most people understand it, that we abandon the attempt to understand.
When confronted with the many difficulties of creation, critics of the Bible hastily label the creation account as mythical and do not attempt a disciplined approach to understand the text.
Fortunately, not everything is strange in this account. Some of the things mentioned in it are known to us.
Perhaps we may begin with that part of the first chapter of Genesis which we can understand. The Hebrew word for creation used there is applied in the Bible only to God.
Yet this term, bara [בָּרָא-Strong's number H1254], is used synonymously, at least apparently, with the Hebrew word for doing or making, asalt .
In one case, and twice in this special case, doing or making is used of something other than God: the fruit tree making the fruit, to translate literally. The word bara is applied only to God. What this means is not explained in the Bible.
Since the Bible does not explain why the word "bara" is applied only in reference to God, we cannot know.
But there is a synonymous term (asah) [עָשָׂה-Strong's number H6213] for creating-making-which is applied also to other beings, to trees for example, to say nothing of human beings.
Let us therefore see what this word making means in the cases in which it occurs within the first chapter of Genesis. The fruit tree making fruit, what kind of making is this?
The fruit is originated almost entirely by the tree and, as it were, within the tree.
Secondly, the fruit does not have the looks of a tree.
Thirdly, the fruit is a complete and finished product.
And last, the fruit can be separated from the tree."
Perhaps creation has a certain kinship with this kind of making as distinguished from the following kinds of making:
First, the making of something which does not originate almost entirely in the maker, artifacts, which require clay and so on in addition to the maker;
secondly, the making of something which looks like the maker, the generation of animals;
third, the making of something which is not complete but needs additional making or doing, the eggs;
and finally, the making of something which cannot be separated from the maker: for example, deeds, human deeds, cannot be separated from the man who does them (deeds and makings would be the same word in Hebrew).
We keep only one thing in mind: creation seems to be the making of separable things, just as fruits are separable from trees; creation seems to have something to do with separation.
If creation is the separation of primeval matter into organized matter, then we can understand that the accounts of forming seas, land and heaven as intelligible, that is, the various atoms have been rearranged to form water, various rocks and innumerable stars. However, the cause of this arrangement cannot be arbitrarily assigned to either a good God or an evil Demon.
Creation is the making of separated things, of species of plants, animals and so on; and creation means even the making of separating things-heaven separates water from water, the heavenly bodies separate day from night.”
The most glaring difficulty” in the account of creation is “created by the fact that the Bible speaks of days prior to the creation of the sun.
The sun was created only on the fourth creation day. We have no difficulty in admitting that the sun came into being so late; every natural scientist would say this today...
The most difficult passage is the creation of the sun on the fourth day. We have serious reservations regarding an appeal to authority: every natural scientist would agree that sun came into existence on the fourth day.
The Bible tells us that the sun was created after the plants and trees, the vegetative world, was created.
The vegetative world was created on the third day and the sun on the fourth day. That is the most massive difficulty of the account given in the first chapter of the Bible.
How are the vegetative world... and the sun... understood so that it makes sense to say the vegetative world precedes the sun?
Strauss suggests that with some diligence, the researcher may find a reason why the creation of plants precede the the creation of the sun.
The creation of the vegetative world takes place on the third day, on the same day on which the earth and the sea were created first.
The vegetative world is explicitly said to have been brought forth by the earth.
Hence the Bible does not mention any divine making in the creation of the vegetative world.... whereas God made the world of heaven and sun and moon and stars, and ... God commands the earth to bring forth the animals and God made the animals. The earth does not bring them forth.
Interestingly, the vegetative world occurs naturally, without divine intervention, although God made the animals. Cain’s animal sacrifice was not acceptable to the Lord, while Abel’s offering of plants was accepted. We suggest that the reason for the rejection of Cain’s sacrifice was due to the animals being created by God, whereas plants are a natural result from the earth. We note that before the flood only plants could be eaten [Genesis 1:29], but after the flood animals could also be used for food [Genesis 9:3].
The vegetative world belongs to the earth. It is not separable from the earth.
The vegetative world is created on the same day on which the earth and the seas are created; the third day is the day of the double creation. In most of the six cases, one thing or a set of things is created.
There are two series of creation...The first begins with the creation of light, the second with that of the sun. Both series end with a double creation. The first half ends with the vegetative world, the second half ends with man.
Creation is the making ... of things or groups of things which are separated from each other, which are distinguished from each other, which are distinguishable, which are discernible. But that which makes possible distinguishing and discerning is light. The first thing created is... light.
Light must be created first, since it is only possible to perceive differences in the light.
Light is the beginning, the principle of distinction or separation. ... We know light primarily as the light of the sun. ... The sun belongs to the work of the fourth day. There is a particularly close kinship between light and the sun.
This kinship is expressed by the fact that the light is the beginning of the first half of the creation and the sun is the beginning of the second half of creation.
Could the second half of creation have a principle of its own, a principle different from light or separation or distinction?
Separations or distinctions are obviously preserved in the second half. Hence, a principle different from light or separation or distinction would have to be one which is based on, or which presupposes, separation or distinction but which is not reductible to separation or distinction. The sun presupposes light but is not light.
Now let us look at the creations...-on the fourth day, sun, moon and stars; on the fifth day, the water animals and birds; on the sixth day, land animals and man.
The principle of the second half [of creation]... is local motion. It is for ... this very important reason that the vegetative world precedes the sun; the vegetative world lacks local motion. The sun is what it is ... by coming and going, by local motion.
The difficulty from which I started is solved or almost solved once one realizes that the account of creation consists of two main parts which are parallel.
The first part begins with light, the second part begins with the sun. Similarly there is a parallelism of the end of the two parts.
Only on the third and sixth days were there two acts of creation... on the third day, earth and seas and the vegetative world; on the sixth day, the land animals and man.
Local motion must be understood ... as a ... higher order, because local motion means not merely for a thing to be separated from other things...
Local motion is separation of a higher order because it [is]...able to separate itself from its place... by virtue of the thing's moving.
The creation of the heavenly bodies on the fourth day is immediately followed by the creation of the water animals and the birds.
Local motion is followed by life. Life ... must be understood as a form of separation. In the first place life is here characterized by the capacity of being addressed...
The heavenly bodies are not addressed, therefore, the conclusion is that they are lifeless.
part the second
It is of the greatest importance that the Bible singles out hearing and not seeing or touch as characteristic of the living being.
Animal life [represents] a still higher degree of separation [since]... Animals can change not only their place; but also their courses. The sun and moon and stars cannot change their courses...
We can understand the reasoning as to why the heavenly bodies are mentioned before animal life.
Animals are not limited to changing their places. From this it follows that the being created last [man] is characterized by the fact that ... man is the only being created in the image of God.
If we consider the parallelism of man and plants and that plants are the only creatures to which the term making is explicitly ascribed, we may also recognize that man is capable of doing, making deeds, to the highest degree of all creatures.
The sequence of creation in the first chapter of the Bible:
[From] the principle of separation, light;
via something which separates, heaven;
to something which is separated, earth and sea;
to things which are productive of separated things...
then things which can separate themselves from their places...
then things which can separate themselves from their courses ...
and finally a being which can separate itself from its way, the right way.
Since light is the principle of separation, it is listed first. The second item is the heavens that separates the waters above from the waters below. The third aspect are the items which are separated [the earth and the sea]. Fourth, the items that are productive [plant life]. Fifth, the things that can separate from their places [heavenly bodies]. Sixth, the things that can separate from their courses [animal life].
The clue to the first chapter seems to be the fact that the account of creation consists of two main parts.”
This implies that the created world is conceived to be characterized by a fundamental dualism: things which are different from each other without having the capacity of local motion and things [that] ... have the capacity of local motion.
To understand the character of this dualism, otherness, and local motion, let us confront it with the only other fundamental dualism referred to in the chapter.
The main distinguishing characteristics in the creation account are dualism, difference and local motion.
I quote the twenty-sixth verse :"'and God created man in his image, in his image, in the image of God, did God create him, male and female did he create them". That is a very difficult sentence.
Strauss uses another esoteric writing technique-the mistake or blunder. The quote is from the twenty seventh verse. It is a difficult sentence since it could be misunderstood that they were created as androgynous.
The dualism of the male and female could well be used for the fundamental articulation of the world and it was used in this way in many cosmogonies-the male and female gender of nouns seems to correspond to the male and female gender of all things and this could lead to the assumption of two principles, a male and a female, a highest god and a highest goddess.
Many cosmogonies describe creation as the result of the interaction between a God and a Goddess.
The Bible disposes of this possibility by ascribing the dualism of male and female... to God himself by locating... the root of their dualism within God.
The dualism mentioned in Genesis is not found in gender or in the created world, but within God.
God created man in his image and ... he created him male and female.
And also the Bible mentions the distinction of male and female only in the case of man” with the implication “that male and female are not universal characters.
According to the account in Genesis, the terms “male” and “female” are only applicable to human beings. These terms are not “universal characters”, that is, they can not be applied to heavenly bodies, plants, or animals. While we may initially uncertain if the animals were created with one, not two, genders; we recall that they were commanded to multiply.
There are many things that are neither male nor female but all things are what they are by being distinguished from each other; ... are either fixed to a place or capable of local motion. Therefore, the fundamental dualism, male and female, is replaced by the fundamental dualism, distinctness, ... and local motion.
This latter dualism, distinctness-local motion, does not lend itself to the assumption of two gods, a distinguishing god and a moving god...
The “moving god” is reminiscent of the prime mover of certain philosophies.
This latter dualism “excludes the possibility of conceiving of the coming into being of the world as an act of generation, the parents being two gods, a male and a female god; or, it disposes of the possibility of conceiving of the coming into being of the world itself, as a progeny of a male and of a female god.”
The Biblical account of creation can not be assumed or correctly understood as an act of generation or as the result of generation.
The dualism chosen by the Bible, the dualism as distinguished from the dualism of male and female, is not sensual but intellectual... and this may help to explain the paradox that plants precede the sun.
Once again, Strauss seems to linger over unimportant details and their various implications. The rational dualism of the creation account is the reason why plants are mentioned prior to the sun.
All created beings mentioned in the Bible are non-mythical beings in the vulgar sense of the word; I mean they are all beings which we know from daily sense-perception.
Strauss notes that the created beings found in the Bible are real creatures, not imaginary beings. We would prefer the wording "All created beings mentioned in Genesis...", as the creatures called Leviathan and Behemoth are unknown to us.
The order of creation: The first thing created is light, something which does not have a place. All later creatures have a place.
The things which have a place either do not consist of heterogeneous parts [heaven, earth, seas]; or they do consist of heterogeneous parts, namely, of species or individuals.
[The] things which have a place either do not have a definite place but rather fill a whole region, or something to be filled [heaven, earth, seas]; or else they do consist of heterogeneous parts, of species and individuals or they do not fill a whole region but a place within a region [within the sea, within heaven, on earth].
The things which fill a place within a region either lack local motion-[the plants] or they possess local motion [animals].”
Those [entities] which possess local motion either lack life, the heavenly bodies; or they possess life. The living beings are either ... water animals and birds; or they are terrestrial.
The terrestrial living beings are either not created in the image of God... or in the image of God... In brief, the first chapter of Genesis is based on a division by two...
Strauss demonstrates that the ordering of the creation account can be understood by “either/or” statements. This is a possible method to categorize the twenty six unilateral glyph of Egyptian hieroglyphs. [Living/non living; human/non human; inside the home/outside the home; alive/ dead; etc.].
Strauss criticizes those readers who reach a hasty judgment and label the creation account as mythological. We suggest that this incorrect judgment is the result of careless reading or thoughtless reading. We must conclude that these readers believe that the writers of the Bible wrote senseless allegories without any consideration of whether the reader could understand the text or not, that is, these readers deny the premise of writing – the communication of ideas.
Strauss criticizes those readers who reach a hasty judgment and label the creation account as mythological. We suggest that this incorrect judgment is the result of careless reading or thoughtless reading. We must conclude that these readers believe that the writers of the Bible wrote senseless allegories without any consideration of whether the reader could understand the text or not, that is, these readers deny the premise of writing – the communication of ideas.
The account of the world given in the first chapter of the Bible is … [an account] based on evident distinctions which are as accessible to us as they were to the biblical author, [since] these distinctions are accessible to man as man.
Strauss suggests that the understanding of Genesis is understandable to all men, regardless of their piety, since it is based on “evident distinctions” found in the natural world. The thinking reader will realize that the ordering of the days is result of human reasoning and human effort, that is, no divine revelation from an omnipotent God is required to relate the account, to organize the account, or to understand it.
We can readily understand why we should find something of this kind in the Bible. An account of the creation of the world... necessarily presupposes an articulation... of the completed world, of the cosmos, that is to say, a cosmology.
An account of the primeval world (“without form and void”) without a description of the world as it we know it (“the completed world”) would be strange, if not worthless.
The biblical account of creation is based on a cosmology.
All the created things mentioned in the Bible are accessible to man as man regardless of differences of climate, origin, religion, or anything else.
The account of Genesis is neither extraordinary nor inaccessible to man. The reader may also realize that this entirely human account means that divine revelation is not required.
Someone might say, that ... we all know what sun, moon, and stars, fruits and plants are, but what about the light as distinguished from the sun? Who knows it?
But do we not all know a light which is not derivative from the sun...? I say yes, lightning. And perhaps there is a connection between what the Bible says about the light and the biblical understanding of lightning.
Strauss presents a somewhat obscure objection that not all light has its origin from the sun and suggests that the enterprising researcher should locate all references to lighting in the Bible in order to understand what the Bible teaches regarding lightning. בָּרָק-baraq. Strong's number H1300.
The Bible starts then from the world as we know it and as men always knew it and will know it, prior to any explanation, mythical or scientific.
Strauss clearly states the Genesis account can be understood without any mythical or scientific explanation and without any recourse to authorities, either ancient or modern.
I make only this remark about the word "world". The word "world" does not occur in the Bible. The Hebrew Bible says "heaven and earth" where we would ordinarily say "world'".
אֶרֶץ ʼerets, eh'-rets; from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land). Strong's number H776.
שָׁמַיִם shâmayim, shaw-mah'-yim; dual of an unused singular שָׁמֶה shâmeh; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky. Strong's number H8064.
רָקִיעַ râqîyaʻ, raw-kee'-ah; from H7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky. Strong's number H7549.
שָׁמַיִם shâmayim, shaw-mah'-yim; dual of an unused singular שָׁמֶה shâmeh; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky. Strong's number H8064.
רָקִיעַ râqîyaʻ, raw-kee'-ah; from H7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky. Strong's number H7549.
The Hebrew word which is mostly translated by "world"' means ... in the first place, the remote past, "'once" in the sense of "then", the early time or since early time.
It means secondly "once" or "then" in the future. And it means finally, "once and for all", for all times, never ceasing... It means, therefore, that which is permanent.
We were unable to find any indication to substantiate the claim that “world” is a reference to time and not to place.תֵּבֵל têbêl, tay-bale'; from H2986; the earth (as moist and therefore inhabited); by extension, the globe; Strong's number H8398. Tebel is translated as “world” thirty five times in the KJV and once as “inhabitable land”.
Our investigation included words referring to time (H5956, H5331 and H5703) without any confirmation that these words pertain in anyway to “heaven and earth”.
The implication of Strauss' explanation is that matter (“the world”) is “permanent”, “for all times, never ceasing”. The creation of matter ex nihilo is expressly denied and the reorganization of prexisting matter is suggested.
Our investigation included words referring to time (H5956, H5331 and H5703) without any confirmation that these words pertain in anyway to “heaven and earth”.
The implication of Strauss' explanation is that matter (“the world”) is “permanent”, “for all times, never ceasing”. The creation of matter ex nihilo is expressly denied and the reorganization of prexisting matter is suggested.
The Hebrew word for world ... means... something connected with time, a character of time rather than something which we see.
Those things mentioned in the first chapter of the Bible and familiar to all of us now and familiar to all men at all times.
The Bible really begins, in this sense also, with the beginning. But you will say... that what I have discussed is the least important part or aspect of the first chapter. The cosmology used by the biblical author is not the theme of the biblical author.
Typical of Strauss' writing style, he focuses on one seemingly unimportant aspect, in this example, the cosmology of the author, and writes extensively with many seemingly inconsequential details.
That cosmology, that articulation of the visible universe is the unthematic presupposition of the biblical author. His theme is that the world has been created by God in these and these stages.
The Bible in this first chapter makes a distinction between things which are named by God and things which are not named by God and a distinction between things which are called good by God and things which are not called good by God.
The things named by God are day, as the name of light, and night, as the name of darkness, and furthermore, heaven, earth, and seas.
All other things are not named by God; only these general things... which lack particularization, which do not have a place, properly speaking, are named by God. The rest is left to be named by man.
Generalities are named by God and the remainder are to be named later by man.
Almost all things are called good by God; the only ones excepted are heaven and man.
Interestingly, heaven and man are not described as "good" by God.
One can say that it was not necessary to call man good, explicitly, because man is the only being created in the image of God and because man is blessed by God.
Strauss suggests that it was not necessary to describe man as good, since he was created in God's image and blessed by God. The cynical or critical reader may find this reasoning or explanation unconvincing.
Certainly the only thing which is not called good without being redeemed... [either “blessed by God” or “created in the image of God”] is heaven. We may say that the concern of the author of this chapter is a depreciation or a demotion of heaven...
Man is “redeemed”, but heaven is not redeemed, but depreciated. We are unsure if the redemption of heaven is possible.
Creation appears to be preceded by a kind of rudimentary earth, [however, there] is no kind of rudimentary heaven, and the heavenly bodies, sun, moon, and stars are... nothing but tools... for giving light to the earth; and... these heavenly bodies are lifeless; they are not gods.
Heaven is depreciated in favor of the earth, life on earth, man.
Since the Jews do not have an exalted notion of an existence after death, we agree that the Genesis account favors the earth, the life of man. From this account, living beings are only found on the earth; none are found in the vault of heaven.
[In] Greek cosmology, heaven is a more important theme than earth, than life on earth. Heaven means for the Greek thinkers the same as the world, the cosmos. Heaven means a whole, the vault which comprises everything else.
The Greeks understand heaven as the cosmos, all of creation, while the Hebrews can only appreciate, favor or contemplate an earthly existence.
If the more sophisticated Greek cosmologists realized that one cannot leave it at the primacy of heaven, they went beyond heaven... to a super-heavenly place. The human thing is a word of depreciation in Greek philosophy.
The more sophisticated Greeks sought a heaven above the stars, beyond the created material universe. In this regard, their thought is similar to Christianity where heaven is understood as a spiritual existence. The sophisticated Greeks are the thoughtful minority, not the opinionated majority.
There is then a deep opposition between the Bible and cosmology proper, and since all philosophy is cosmology ultimately, between the Bible and philosophy.
We are uncertain which steps are needed from to venture from the love of wisdom to the study of the universe.
The Bible proclaims cosmology is a non-thematic implication of the story of creation. It is necessary to articulate the visible universe and understand its character only for the sake of saying that the visible universe, the world, was created by God.
Creation is described only to give the glory to God and for no other reason.
The Bible is distinguished from all philosophy because it simply asserts that the world is created by God. There is not a trace of an argument in support of this assertion.
Arguments are an aspect of philosophy.
How do we know that the world was created? The Bible declared it so. We know it by virtue of ... divine utterance ultimately.
Strauss returns to the concept of miracles or divine revelations. The creation of the world is asserted, without any support for this assertion.
All knowledge of the createdness of the world has an entirely different character than our knowledge of the structure or articulation of the world.
We speculate that if Strauss were bolder, he would write “inferior character” instead of “different character”.
The essential distinction between the plants, brutes, and so on, is accessible to man as man; but our knowledge of the createdness of the world is not evident knowledge.
Men can describe the structure of the world, but the “createdness” of the world is not obvious and is only “known” through the divine revelation of an omnipotent God.
All men as men cannot help but be led to this cosmic religion, if they do not go beyond the created things.
Strauss suggests that those who remain guided by the material world, will adhere to a “cosmic religion”. This "cosmic religion" is not explained and we cannot know if the followers of this religion worship the heavenly bodies or the universe or have a sophisticated worldview. Certain aspects of astrology may be considered to be religious, since these aspects might be applied by enterprising astrologers to explain man and his place in the universe.
The fact that the world has a certain structure is known to man as man.
That the world is created is known by the fact that God speaks to Israel ... [and] that is the reason why Israel knows that sun and moon and stars do not deserve worship... and ultimately, that the origin of the world is divine creation.
Israel's knowledge that the heavenly bodies are not to be worshiped is of an “entirely different character” and this knowledge is derived from divine revelation.
part the third
He who has not heard that speech [from God to Israel] either directly or by tradition ... ill remain .. within the horizon of cosmology,
The problem regarding tradition or second hand information as inferior to true knowledge or even the knowledge of facts is brought to the careful reader's attention. The primary difficulty with second hand information is that it cannot be verified; one cannot be certain if it true or false.
One great difficulty of the beginning of the Bible is that there is a two-fold account of creation, one in chapter one and another in chapters two to three. The first chapter of the Bible contains ... a cosmology which is integrated into an account of the creation of the world.
This integration of cosmology into an account of creation implies the depreciation of heaven. Heaven is not divine; heaven is subordinate in rank to earth, to life on earth.
Biblical cosmology “is based on evidence accessible to man as man, whereas the assertion of the createdness of the world is not based on such evidence.
What is wrong with man's effort to find his bearing in the light of what is evident to man as man? What is the true character of human life?
Strauss attaches a moral consideration [“What is wrong..”] to man's attempts to understand to his fullest ability.
What is the right life of man? This question is the starting point of the second account of creation in the second chapter. The first account ends with man; the second account begins with man.
In the first account, man is created on the same day as the terrestrial animals...as part of the whole...as its most exalted part.
It appears from the first account that man is separated to the highest degree, that he can ... change his place... to the highest degree. But this privilege, this liberty, freedom, is also a great danger.
Man is the most ambiguous creature; hence man is not called good, just as heaven is not called good. There is a connection between the ambiguity of man, the danger to which man is essentially exposed, and heaven, with what heaven stands for...
Ambiguous derives from the Latin word meaning “to be uncertain”. It is uncertain that man is either good or not good. It is possible that man could be described as neither good nor evil, but neutral.
“If man is ... in fact the only ambiguous creature, we need a supplement to that account in which man appears also as part of the whole.
The first account of creation does not give an account of man's place in the context of the world, therefore, the second account was created as an explanation.
We need an account which focuses on man alone..., since ambiguity means ambiguity in regard to good and evil, we need an additional account in which man's place is defined... by a negative command, a prohibition. For a prohibition sets forth explicitly the limitations of man...the limit separating the good from the evil.
The limitations imposed on man have been exceeded by man's effort: “Behold, the man is become as one of us...”.
The second chapter of the Bible answers the question ... how human life... as we know it, has come into being.
An implication of this statement is that the first creation story of man did not demonstrate human existence as “we know it”, as a version removed from reality.
The answer to the question regarding human life requires an articulation of human life. Human life, the life of most men, is the life of tillers of the soil or is at least based on that Life.
Human life is... characterized most obviously by need for rain and need for hard work. Now, this cannot have been the character of human life at the beginning; for if man was needy from the very beginning...he is ...at least seriously tempted to be harsh, uncharitable, unjust; he is not fully responsible for his lack of charity or justice because of his neediness.
Today, man's condition is characterized by the need for rain and hard work. By working backwards from the present, the reader can reason that there was a time when neither rain was not needed [Genesis 2:10- “And a river went out of Eden to water the garden.”] nor hard work [Genesis 2:16- “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat...”].
But somehow we know that man is responsible for his lack of charity and justice; therefore, his original state must have been one in which he was not forced or seriously tempted to be uncharitable or unjust.
We find it interesting that Strauss can not know who wrote the creation account [“We are not told; hence we do not know.”], yet “somehow” we know man is responsible for his lacking in charity and justice. By working backwards from our present condition, Strauss suggests that the author of Genesis proposes a time when man was not “uncharitable or unjust”.
Originally man did not need rain nor hard work; there was a state of affluence and of ease.
This the condition described in the Garden of Eden.
“The present state of man is due to man's fault, to his transgression of a prohibition with which he could easily have complied.
Man was created in the image of God, in a way like God. Was he not... tempted to transgress any prohibitions, any limitations? Was this likeness to God not a constant temptation to be literally like Him?
Strauss suggests that man was “tempted” to exceed his limitations, “tempted” to be “literally like” God. These questions will be answered by the thoughtful reader.
[In the second account] man is now said to be, not created in the image of God, but dust from the earth.”
Man is created in lowliness [from dust]; he was not tempted therefore to disobey either by need or by his high estate. Furthermore, in the first account man and woman were created in one act. In the second account, man is created first... and finally only the woman out of the rib of man.
In the initial account, man is created in the image of God, now he is formed from dust. We are told that dirt or earthly matter is organized to form man. Like the earth, man was not created from nothing, but from preexisting matter. Therefore, the earth, Adam and the rib were formed from preexistence matter. We cannot but be reminded that in the Star Trek universe, replicators rearrange existing matter to form needed items, among these created items are food. This replication in Star Trek can be explained by the fact that modern science knows that matter cannot be destroyed, it can only change its form.
In the second account of creation” the presupposition is that the woman “is lower than man. And this low creature... woman... begins the transgression. Disobedience is shockingly ill founded.
Woman is a lesser being than man as she is not created in the image of God. Strauss assigns the beginning of the transgression to the woman, and perhaps this is the correct interpretation, since the serpent was not prohibited from eating, nor does the text indicate that the serpent ate from the tree.
We remind the reader that the woman's knowledge of the prohibition is from Adam, not from God. At most, this knowledge may be described as a tradition from Adam. It cannot be described as a tradition from God, since under this understanding, anyone could claim to have a revelation from God. We may say that the woman's disregard for second hand information is similar to philosophy's reluctance to value opinions.
We remind the reader that the woman's knowledge of the prohibition is from Adam, not from God. At most, this knowledge may be described as a tradition from Adam. It cannot be described as a tradition from God, since under this understanding, anyone could claim to have a revelation from God. We may say that the woman's disregard for second hand information is similar to philosophy's reluctance to value opinions.
The second account fundamentally continues the tendency of the first account in two points. First, there was no need for rain... which again means a depreciation of heaven, the source of rain. And secondly, the derivative character of woman implies a further depreciation of the dualism male/female which plays such a role in the first part.
Strauss reiterates that rain is not needed in the Garden of Delights and the woman formed in the second account is inferior to man. We immediately recall the first woman created for Adam, Lilith, who “left Adam after she refused to become subservient to him” [Wikipedia].
We have no reason to suppose on the basis of the biblical account, as distinguished from later explanations, that man was guided by desire for knowledge of good and evil for he would have had to have some knowledge of good and evil in order to have such desire. It is even hard to say that man desired to transgress the divine command. It comes out rather accidentally.
Strauss notes that if man desired knowledge of good and evil, it would be necessary that he would have some knowledge of good and evil in order to have this desire. Strauss suggests that the transgression happens “accidentally.” This explanation may be valid if man did not desire the knowledge of good and evil.
[Man] did transgress and he knew that he did. Man certainly chose to disobey. He chose therewith the principle of disobedience. This principle is called knowledge of good and evil.
We are confronted with another technique of esoteric writing-the contradiction. Did man "chose to disobey" the commandment or did the transgression happen "rather accidentally"?
We may say that disobedience means autonomous knowledge of good and evil, a knowledge which man possesses by himself, the implication being that the true knowledge is not autonomous; and, in the light of later theological developments, one could say the true knowledge of good and evil is supplied only by revelation.
From the text, we can deduce that disobedience, in any form and at anytime, leads to an autonomous knowledge of good and evil, however, later theological consensus concluded that knowledge of good and evil can only be from divine revelation, that is, from the Genesis story. In light of this later theological opinion, it follows that pagans, whether children or adults, could not be described as disobedient, since they would be ignorant of the revelation from Genesis.
What I am suggesting then is this: the crucial thesis of the first chapter ... is the depreciation of heaven. Heaven is a primary theme of cosmology and of philosophy.
Strauss repeats that the theme of the first chapter is the the demotion of heaven's natural importance, while he clearly writes that heaven is a primary theme of philosophy.
The second chapter contains this explicit depreciation of the knowledge of good and evil, which is only another aspect of the thought expressed in the first chapter. For what does forbidden knowledge of good and evil mean?
Ultimately such knowledge of good and evil as is based on the understanding of the nature of things...; but that means... knowledge of good and evil which is based on the contemplation of heaven.
We are uncertain how pondering heaven leads to the knowledge of good and evil.
The first chapter... questions the primary theme of philosophy; and the second chapter questions the intention of philosophy.
And the third chapter questions cause and effect. Who is responsible for the Fall? Adam assigns the reason to the woman "The woman that thou gavest to be with me..”, while the woman assigns the reason to the serpent "The serpent beguiled me...". However, the reason that is supplied by the thoughtful reader is possibly impious: Adam ate because of the woman, the woman ate because of the serpent and the Lord God created both the serpent and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - without the ultimate cause, the creation of the tree, there could be no effect, the eating the fruit.
But we must not forget that they [the “biblical authors”] were ... certainly familiar with certain things...which are primitive forms of philosophy, contemplation of heaven and becoming wise in human conduct through the contemplation of heaven. The fundamental idea is the same as that of philosophy in the original sense.
We are uncertain how the contemplation of heaven results in wise human behavior and we can only suggest the following speculative analysis: The stars are the farthest from earth and the planets are between the sun and the moon. This presents a cosmic hierarchy: Stars, planets, sun and the moon.
This hierarchy, if applied to men, leads to the understanding that mankind is naturally divided into the smart, the strong and everyone else. The wisdom of “human conduct” may lie in treating people differently based on their individual considerations-just as a specific heavenly body is not equal to any other heavenly body (all stars and planets are different), so individual humans are not equal to other men.
This hierarchy, if applied to men, leads to the understanding that mankind is naturally divided into the smart, the strong and everyone else. The wisdom of “human conduct” may lie in treating people differently based on their individual considerations-just as a specific heavenly body is not equal to any other heavenly body (all stars and planets are different), so individual humans are not equal to other men.
Chapters two and three of Genesis are animated by the same spirit as the first chapter; what the Bible presents is the alternative to the temptation and this temptation we can call...philosophy.
Strauss suggests that temptation is another term for philosophy.
The Bible...confronts us more clearly than any other book with this fundamental alternative: life in obedience to revelation... or life in human freedom...
No commentary is necessary.
This alternative has never been disposed of, although there are many people who believe that there can be a happy synthesis which is superior to the isolated elements: Bible on the one hand and philosophy on the other. This is impossible, Syntheses always sacrifice the decisive claim of one of the two elements.
The decisive claim of the Bible is that it is a product of divine revelation, a miracle, possibly due to the intervention of an omnipotent God. The true love of wisdom eventually leads the seeker to the realization that opinions, those suppositions of the majority, are not to be held as true. Therefore, we agree that any synthesis of these two claims is “impossible”.
The Greek philosophic view has as its primary basis the simple notion, that ... an understanding of heaven, is the ground by which we are led to the right conduct.
We suggest that the contemplation of heaven leads to an understanding of the cosmic hierarchy and this hierarchy is applicable to man. The correct application of this understanding leads to “right conduct”. From this cosmic hierarchy, a hierarchy of man can be reasoned.
True knowledge... is knowledge of what is always. Knowledge of the things which are not always, and especially knowledge of what happened in the past, is knowledge of an entirely inferior character.
Strauss defines “true knowledge”. If the philosopher seeks “knowledge of what is always”, then the philosopher cannot find this defining characteristic in any written work, as this work may be open to further revision.
As regards knowledge of the remote past, in particular, it comes to be regarded as particularly uncertain.
Hardouin would agree that knowledge of the past, especially as found in the alleged writings of the atheistic Church Fathers, is of an “inferior character” and “particularly uncertain”. It is open to further revision.
[The function of Greek thought] is to arouse to thinking, to independent thinking, those who are capable of it; the author of the book, in this highest sense, is sovereign [and the author] refuses admission to every thought, to every image, to every feeling which is not evidently necessary for the purpose or the function of the book.
If a life in freedom is considered synonymous with a life of “independent thinking”, then a life in obedience to revelation must be synonymous with a life of “dependent thinking”. This state of “relying on, or being controlled by someone or something else” cannot be beneficial to a sophisticated minority.
The perfect book is an image or an imitation of that all-comprehensiveness and perfect evidence of knowledge which is aspired to but not reached.
The Bible rejects the principle of autonomous knowledge and everything that goes with it.
Because of the claim of divine revelation for the Bible, Strauss correctly states that individuals cannot have knowledge of good or evil, independent of the Bible.
“The mysterious God is the last theme and highest theme of the Bible.”
The “difficult or impossible to understand, explain, or identify” God is the result of contradictory statements found in the Bible.
In other words, the purpose of the Bible, as a book, partakes of the mysterious character of the divine purpose. Man is not master of how to begin; before he begins to write he is already confronted with writings... which impose their law on him.”
The man in this example is not the author, but one who is already familiar with the sacred writings. This deduction necessitates that over an unknown passage of time, the writings have been declared to be sacred and possess a divine purpose.
He may modify these holy writings, compile these holy writings, so as to make out of them a single writing as the compilers of the Old Testament probably did, but he can do this only in a spirit of humility and reverence.
The redactor can only modify the scripture in a spirit of a “modest or low view of one's own importance” and “a feeling of profound respect for someone or something”, therefore, humility and reverence can only be applied to one who can be described as an opinionated “dependent thinker”.
[The redactor's] very piety may compel him to alter the texts of the holy writings which came down to him. He may do this ... because certain passages in an older source may lend themselves to misunderstanding.... He may change..., but his principle will always be to change as little as possible. He will exclude ... only what is evidently incompatible with a purpose whose ground is bidden.
Only the obvious contradictions to the purpose of sacred writings will be edited and excluded to insure conformity with that purpose.
conclusion
The sacred book, the Bible, may then abound in contradictions and in repetitions which are not intended...
The Bible reflects in its literary form the inscrutable mystery of the ways of God which it would be impious even to attempt to comprehend.
At the beginning of the essay, Strauss stated that it may be “defensible” to understand the Bible, however, at the conclusion, Strauss suggests that any attempt to understand the writings are impious and, by his own admission, we must conclude that his effort is impious.
Through philological research into the meaning of Hebrew words, Strauss has attempted to demonstrate that the act of creation as related in Genesis was not creation from nothing, as it is sometimes suggested nowadays by certain groups, but a rearrangement of existing matter.
The thoughtful reader can reach several reasonable conclusions: the author of Genesis could not conceive of creation from nothing, that is, he was not “sophisticated”, the Hebrew language is incapable of describing the creation from nothing or, perhaps the most impious suggestion- the God of the Bible is incapable of creation from nothing. This inability or lack of power on the part of the God of Genesis can only mean that he is, in fact, not all powerful. And if not all powerful, then...
As always, the Gentle Reader will reach his own conclusions.
Through philological research into the meaning of Hebrew words, Strauss has attempted to demonstrate that the act of creation as related in Genesis was not creation from nothing, as it is sometimes suggested nowadays by certain groups, but a rearrangement of existing matter.
The thoughtful reader can reach several reasonable conclusions: the author of Genesis could not conceive of creation from nothing, that is, he was not “sophisticated”, the Hebrew language is incapable of describing the creation from nothing or, perhaps the most impious suggestion- the God of the Bible is incapable of creation from nothing. This inability or lack of power on the part of the God of Genesis can only mean that he is, in fact, not all powerful. And if not all powerful, then...
As always, the Gentle Reader will reach his own conclusions.